Now that I’ve had a chance to play with Google Wave a bit and to hear what other people have to say about it I’ve noticed that a lot of people are disappointed and it seems to me that they have missed the point.

Google Wave is a platform, a framework, an infrastructure. It has a front end, but that’s not really what is impressive about it (which is a good thing considering the complexity and bugginess right now). What is amazing is that Google has developed a real-time communication framework that can work in a federated environment. Why is this cool? Because it means that I can use it at work behind firewalls, at home for my family and personal projects, set it up at school with the right privacy to comply with child protection laws and also participate in it publicly on Google’s servers or anyone else’s I prefer. And it will still work in real time, across these servers transparently to me or securely within them. It won’t be “a Wave clone” that I have to beg everyone else to sign up for. It will just be Wave on a different server. All my contacts can be shared and my communications flow as freely between them, or I can create a walled garden. The choice is will be up to me.

People aren’t getting it right now because they’re expecting the beta to all be about polishing the User Experience. But it’s not about polishing: it’s about defining. This is similar to the introduction of Microsoft Surface: here is a great big flashy table with a powerful computer in it that responds to touch. At first exposure it sounds awesome, but what can you do with it? How will people be most comfortable interacting with it? What practical tasks can it facilitate? What fun can be had with it? The potential is there, but the only way to really know how it should best be used is to have a lot of people attempt to interact with it, without preconceptions, to figure out what the natural ways to interact with it actually are. There have been a lot of surprises as more and more people are able to play with it. A whole new set of gestures and user interface elements have been developed for Surface and refined as more and more people actually use them. I had the opportunity to participate in part of that process and it was fascinating.

I see Google Wave’s release as very similar to Microsoft Surface’s. There is a really powerful back-end underneath the UI that is capable of some amazing things, yet there haven’t been enough people exposed to it for the development team to really know the best way to provide efficient interaction with that engine. I think that is the purpose of the closed beta, to figure those things out. But people have these unrealistic expectations based on the misuse of the whole “beta” concept that what Google has is just a tiny step away from being ready for release to the world. That’s just not the case. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a ton of potential in Wave, and, to those of us out there than can appreciate the magnificence of the accomplishment of the platform that Google Wave is built on, it is very impressive indeed.

To all you fellow beta testers out there: give it some time and give Google some feedback and you will see Wave become much more intuitive to use (as well as less buggy and more performant). Developers will build alternative clients and more and more widgets for it. Waves will become just one more format for communication that we won’t even think about, we’ll just use in the way that’s most appropriate for the type of communication we need at the time. There will be “client views” for particular tasks based on who you are communicating with and their accessibility. If they’re offline you will use an email-like view to compose messages to them. If they’re online, you’ll use something more akin to IM or Twitter. All the stuff that is currently confusing and gets in your way (scrolling down huge waves just to find the new messages) will be fixed to no longer clutter your experience. And you will eventually be able to customize your client to make it even more efficient for how you want to receive your information, not just how you create and share it. These things will come as more people are exposed to Wave and see the potential and write their own solutions to the new problems that are becoming obvious now that there are enough other people to interact with on the service.

It’s new, and in closed beta. It’s not fair to write it off as “over-hyped”, especially when the hype has been coming from people who were interpreting screen shots or didn’t really understand that Wave is a new platform and not really a new UI to “fix the problem of email” or become the next social media magnet site. Google let us beta testers try it out to figure out how we’re reacting to the new communications capabilities Wave’s framework offers. Give Google the feedback they need to make it better for everyone.

Wave offers us a new way to communicate digitally that is adaptable to our immediate situation and needs. Wave is not out to replace Twitter, Facebook, IM or email: the point is to render them obsolete. That will happen without a lot of protest once someone figures out the ulitimate client for the already amazing platform Google has built… it will just seem natural.

I think I know what FriendFeed is really all about, and it’s simply brilliant.

For those who have been following the conversations about noise on FriendFeed you know that many people (including me) have been asking for the ability to create filters to solve the problem. Some people have even suggested that the solution will be the Semantic Web or that FriendFeed is already a step in that direction. I think FriendFeed’s creators have even more ambitious plans.

FriendFeed is going to be an intelligent agent.

The setup is perfect. FriendFeed is gathering all of our attention data. It’s just a small leap to analyzing that data and finding patterns of usage for each FFeeder. Then it’s just another small step to apply those patterns to incoming data, both as filters on streams we subscribe to, and as alerts on streams that we don’t. It’s like reverse web site analytics: instead of analyzing what lots of people find interesting, it’s finding what’s interesting to a single person.

FriendFeed’s founders are from Google. They have experience with finding interesting things in large amounts of data. Search, from one angle, is simply gathering data from many sources, extracting what is relevant within a context and then prioritizing the results by ranking. It seems as if the same type of algorithms that are used to determine page rank with search engines could also be used to determine what’s interesting to us in the pool of our attention data.

At FriendFeed is each user is a context and ranking is a result of attention. With page rank, every link to a site is a vote for its contents. With attention rank, there is a chance to be even more precise because there can be negative votes as well. You’re voting on what’s interesting every time you participate and even when you don’t.

Votes Up:

• Contributing content (big)
• Creating or joining a room (big)
• Subscribing to someone (big)
• Creating an imaginary friend (big)
• Commenting (big)
• Liking (minor)

Votes Down:

• Leaving a post in your stream untouched (minor)
• Hiding (big)

The more you participate, the more you share about you and your interests, the better the agent will be able to work for you. All of these votes reveal keywords and context about what’s important to you and what’s not. And you’re constantly generating that information.

So what’s the big deal? It means a pleasurable, efficient, speedy, personalized experience consuming social media with little wasted time digesting noise. The uses could be to filter your stream (no more noise), find people who are similar to you (expand your network), find content you might not have noticed that you would like (information discovery), and even customized advertizing (that you’ll actually appreciate)!

FriendFeed’s founders have most likely learned yet another lesson from their old employer. Google has set itself up to be the gateway for the bulk of the world’s digital information. There’s a lot of power in that. FriendFeed is setting itself up to be the gateway for our attention. We’ll become extremely reliant on it to do the grunt-work of filtering and alerting us to what’s important to us. It will become a service we can’t live without.

And it will be a profitable service as well.

FriendFeed as an intelligent agent can also be a recommendation engine for products and services through tracking how often people with similar interests to you, or people you subscribe to (and generally trust), recommend them. But the most lucrative profits will come from extremely well-targeted advertising. If a FFeeder mentions he’s looking for a new camera, all the sudden he could be presented with offers from camera retailers for exactly the model he’s mentoned. As long as FFeeders participate and announce they are seeking something FriendFeed will deliver advice and ads of relevance. We won’t even mind we’re being advertised to because it will be useful and timely for us. Adding Amazon Wishlists is already a feed option. What if you received a coupon any time something in your wishlist went on sale? Would you be annoyed or appreciative? And what advertiser wouldn’t want to participate and have such a high probability of sales resulting?

It’s even possible that FriendFeed could share revenue with FFeeders based on their influence in resulting sales, giving a cut to the influencer in a model similar to Squidoo. Will they? Probably not, considering there’s possibilities there for abuse by spammers, but maybe. That could even help alleviate the issues many bloggers have with the conversation being diverted from their blogs to FriendFeed. Bloggers could still make money by producing good content that way.

Why do I think FriendFeed is going in this direction? There are already hints in what features they have and what features they don’t (besides the obvious aggregation features):

• Stats for the top 10 people you find most interesting and who find you most interesting are already available. It’s logical to keep expanding on that.
• Only offering Like and Hide on posts simplifies the voting system. Offering a starred ranking system would just confuse things.
• They haven’t offered advanced threaded comments or a full blogging platform and probably won’t. Again, more simple to implement a voting system without these things, and they would be distractions from hooking 3rd party streams into the service. It sets up the impression that FriendFeed is the place to go to consume and attribute information instead of create it.
• Rooms are an awesome way to get people to both cast a vote with their attention and also add context to any content. If content shows up in a room it’s most likely related to the room’s subject.

Maybe this is all just a pipe-dream of mine, but if this isn’t FriendFeed’s developers plan after all then it should be. The potential is there, not only for providing a service that so many people would benefit from, but simply to make a nice profit. I have great expectations.

Ray Ozzie (MS CTO) gave an interesting presentation this morning about incorporating the functionality of the standard clipboard into the web. Deemed “Live Clipboard” he showed us examples of how it could be used to transfer structured content on websites between websites and between websites and Windows applications.

The interface itself is a modified text box which looks like a button. If there is structured data on the web page, the user can click the button to copy it to the clipboard. The first example was copying event data from Eventful to a sample website. The “pasted” data showed up already formatted into fields as it was on the Eventful site. It is stored as a modifed version of CFText in the clipboard so that it can be created in the same structure that it was copied from. Transfering the copied event to Outlook was just a matter of pasting it into a new event.

Ray then showed how he could paste profile data from his MySpace blog to his profile on Facebook as a “live link” that would be automatically updated if changes were made to the MySpace profile.

Finally he gave some interesting examples with Flickr: One-click copying and then pasting an image directly into Windows explorer as well as pasting an entire Flickr feed packaged automatically in a subfolder. A special file was created in the feed folder which would allow the feed to be continuously updated as new items are added.

While definitely a cool idea, Ray admitted it will take wide adoption to make it really useful to most people. It requires both the inclusion of a script on participating sites and the use of specialized microformats that the data will be wrapped in.

Ray said Internet Explorer 7 will have some of this functionality already built in when it is released. He has more details about the concept and the microformats necessary to support it on his blog post.

This could be extremely helpful for synchronizing information between sites that you have a presence on, for creating automatic downloads of files as they become available (using the updating RSS feed to Explorer) and just to make it easier to maintain your personal data both online and offline. I can see potential, if there’s enough momentum to actually implement it on a critical mass of websites.

I’ve been thinking about the Geek Divide after Pete’s post yesterday on it (from which I found Scott Karp’s geek qualification list list that inspired me to create my own).

This is a subject close to my heart, being what I am. But I often wonder, why can’t everyone just be geeky?? How come everyone doesn’t get excited about new technology? Why does the world have so many oblivious, uninterested or just plain ludditious people in it?

Yes, I am firmly entrenched in my little reality tunnel, but I often honestly wonder how people in this day and age can even avoid being geeky. I think it’s an age thing. Maybe things just move too fast for most folks over the age of 25…

I believe that most of the kids 16 and under will be geeks by default. Exposure to computers, the internet, cell phones and gaming consoles for their entire life can’t help but make it so. And it doesn’t phase them that it changes wholly in a matter of months. From their perspective, that rate of change is a normal part of life. And I think that’s a good thing because the rate of change is only going to accelerate.

TAD and I were very entertained by two “popular looking” high school aged kids at the Apple store the other night that were playing with an iLife on an iBook and had to call their friends on their cell and tell them to come see all the awesome stuff it could do. That never would have happened even 5 years ago. Every time we go there are gaggles of teenage girls ohhing and ahhing over iPods and cameras and laptops. It’s become fashionable to have geeky tendencies.

So maybe I’m biased (of course I am), but I’m thinking the Geek Divide, being more of an age issue, will resolve itself as the younger generation matures and starts becoming financially independent. These kids are used to putting time and effort into the things they use, they’re willing to endure the pain of the complexity over lack of features that most of us early adopters willingly go through now and they’ll take it for granted that it’s part of the experience. The issues that people have been talking about lately with “commercializing” Web 2.0 offerings will eventually just kind of fade away.

I’m not saying that “commercializing” isn’t important because it is, especially right now. Usability and feature value should always be major factors in the development of applications. Currently, and over the course of the next few years, the Geek Divide will still be a large chasm. But, I think that the level of user sophistication is going to go up radically after that. We’ll just have to be conscious of the needs of the geek-deficient and hold their hands until then.